Free Coursework

Freedom of expression

8-19-95

Freedom of
Expression

No other
democratic society in the world permits personal freedoms to the degree of the
United States of America. Within the last sixty years, American courts,
especially the Supreme Court, have developed a set of legal doctrines that
thoroughly protect all forms of the freedom of expression. When it comes to
evaluating the degree to which we take advantage of the opportunity to express
our opinions, some members of society may be guilty of violating the bounds of
the First Amendment by publicly offending others through obscenity or racism.
Americans have developed a distinct disposition toward the freedom of
expression throughout history.

The First
Amendment clearly voices a great American respect toward the freedom of
religion. It also prevents the government from "abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and
to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."1 Since the early
history of our country, the protection of basic freedoms has been of the utmost
importance to Americans.

In Langston
Hughes' poem, "Freedom," he emphasizes the struggle to enjoy the
freedoms that he knows are rightfully his. He reflects the American desire for
freedom now when he says, "I do not need my freedom when I'm dead. I
cannot live on tomorrow's bread."2 He recognizes the need for freedom in
its entirety without compromise or fear.

I think
Langston Hughes captures the essence of the American immigrants' quest for
freedom in his poem, "Freedom's Plow." He accurately describes
American's as arriving with nothing but dreams and building America with the
hopes of finding greater freedom or freedom for the first time. He depicts how
people of all backgrounds worked together for one cause: freedom.3

I selected
Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 as a fictitious example of the evils of
censorship in a world that is becoming illiterate. In this book, the
government convinces the public that book reading is evil because it spreads
harmful opinions and agitates people against the government. The vast majority
of people accept this censorship of expression without question and are content
to see and hear only the government's propaganda.4 I found this disturbing yet
realistic. Bradbury's hidden opposition to this form of censorship was
apparent throughout the book and finally prevailed in the end when his main
character rebelled against the practice of burning books.

Among the
many forms of protests are pickets, strikes, public speeches and rallies.
Recently in New Jersey, more than a thousand community activists rallied to
draft a "human" budget that puts the needs of the poor and
handicapped as a top priority.5 Rallies are an effective means for people to
use their freedoms effectively to bring about change from the government.

Freedom of
speech is constantly being challenged as is evidenced in a recent court case
where a Gloucester County school district censored reviews of two R-rated
movies from a school newspaper. Superior Court Judge, Robert E. Francis ruled
that the student's rights were violated under the state Constitution.6 I feel
this is a major break through for students' rights because it limits editorial
control of school newspapers by educators and allows students to print what
they feel is important.

A newly
proposed bill (A-557) would prevent school officials from controlling the
content of student publications. Critics of the bill feel that "student
journalists may be too young to understand the responsibilities that come with
free speech."7 This is a valid point; however, it would provide an
excellent opportunity for them to learn about their First Amendment rights that
guarantees free speech and freedom of the press.

In his
commencement address to Monmouth College graduates, Professor Alan Dershowitz
of Harvard Law School defended the broad right to free speech. He stated,
"My message to you graduates is to assert your rights, to use them
responsibly and boldly, to oppose racism, to oppose sexism, to oppose
homophobia and bigotry of all kinds and to do so within the spirit of the First
Amendment, not by creating an exception to it."8 I agree that one should
feel free to speak openly as long as it does not directly or indirectly lead to
the harm of others.

One of the
more controversial issues was the recent 2 Live Crew incident involving
obscenity in rap music. Their record, "As Nasty as They Wanna Be,"
was ruled obscene in federal court. They were acquitted of the charges and
quickly became a free speech martyr. Although many stores pulled the album,
over two million copies sold as a result of the incident.9 I feel that in this
case the principles of free speech have been abused because young children can
purchase and listen to this obscene music.

The
American flag, symbol of our country's history and patriotism, has also become
a topic of controversy. The controversy was over the right to burn the flag
without punishment. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan offered the
response that "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First
Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea
simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or
disagreeable."10 Burning the flag is considered a form of symbolic speech
and therefore is protected under the First Amendment. As in the 2 Live Crew
case, I feel that we are protecting the wrong people in this case. The
minority is given precedence at the sacrifice of the majority.

The book,
American Voices, is a collection of essays on the freedom of speech and
censorship. I chose to put this collection of essays into my book because they
represent the strong central theme of freedom of expression as the cornerstone
of American government, culture and life.11 Each essay strongly defends a case
for free commercial speech. Each was generally in favor of fewer limitations
on freedom of expression.

The
American voice on freedom has been shaped throughout the course of history by
the initial democratic notions of the immigrants to the same desire for greater
freedom that we have today. The freedom of speech has constantly been
challenged and will continue to be challenged in the future. It is important
that we learn from the precedented cases of the past of our constitutionally
protected rights so that in the future authority will not violate our freedoms
or oppress our liberty.

Ever since
colonial times, the protection of personal freedoms in the United States has
been significantly important. Even in the early stages of American history
there was an urge to put legally protected freedoms into written government
documents. The result was the drafting of the first ten amendments to the
Constitution, the Bill of Rights, by James Madison. The applications of the
personal freedoms described in the Bill of Rights, particularly the freedom of
speech, have been challenged repeatedly in American courts of law and
elsewhere. These incidents and challenges of authority reflect the defensive
American attitude toward the ever important freedom of expression and the
growing significance of personal rights throughout American history.

In Colonial
America, members of diverse nationalities had opposing views on government,
religion, and other subjects of interest. Serious confrontations were
prevented because of the vast lands that separated groups of varying opinions.
A person could easily settle in with other like believers and be untouched by
the prejudices and oppression of others. For this reason, Unitarians avoided
Anglican or Puritan communities. Quakers and Anabaptists were confined to
Pennsylvania and Rhode Island while Catholics were mainly concentrated in
Maryland.12 As the United States grew larger and larger, these diverse groups
were forced to live together. This may have caused individual liberties to be
violated because of the distrust and hostile feelings between ethnic and
religious groups.

Most of the
initial assemblies among the colonies considered themselves immune from
criticism. They actually issued warrants of arrest, interrogated, fined, and
imprisoned anyone accused of libeling the assembly as a whole or any of its
members. Many people were tracked down for writing or speaking works of
offense.

The first
assembly to meet in America, the Virginia House of Burgesses, stripped Captain
Henry Spellman of his rank when he was found guilty of "treasonable
words."13 Even in the most tolerant colonies, printing was strictly
regulated. The press of William Bradford was seized by the government when he
printed up a copy of the colony's charter. He was charged with seditious libel
and spent more than a year in prison.

A more
famous incident was the trial of John Peter Zenger which established the
principle of a free press. In his newspaper he published satirical ballads
regarding William Cosby, the unpopular governor, and his council. His media
was described "as having in them many things tending to raise seditions
and tumults among the people of this province, and to fill their minds with a
contempt for his majesty's government."14 The grand jury did not indict
Zenger and the General Assembly refused to take action. The defendant was
acquitted on the basis that in cases of libel the jury should judge both law
and the facts.

James
Alexander was the first colonial writer to develop a philosophy on the freedom
of speech. He founded the American Philosophical Society and masterminded the
Zenger defense. Alexander's chief conviction was "Freedom of speech is a
principal pillar in a free government: when this support is taken away, the
constitution is dissolved and tyranny is erected on its ruins."15

The
original Constitution did not contain a bill of rights because the convention
delegates felt that individual rights were in no danger and would be protected
by the states. However, the lack of a bill of rights was the strongest
objection to the ratification of the Constitution.

Less than a
decade after the Bill of Rights had been adopted it met its first serious
challenge. In 1798, there was a threat of war with France and thousands of
French refugees were living in the United States. Many radicals supported the
French cause and were considered "incompatible with social order."16
This hysteria led Congress to enact several alien and sedition laws. One law
forbade the publication of false, scandalous or malicious writing against the
government, Congress or the President. The penalty for this crime was a $2,000
fine and two years in prison.

The public
was enraged at these laws. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison pleaded for
freedom of speech and the press. The alien and sedition laws became a prime
issue in the presidential election of 1800. Soon after Jefferson was elected,
the Sedition Act expired and those who had been convicted under it were
immediately pardoned.17

The next
attack on the First Amendment occurred in 1835. President Andrew Jackson
proposed a law that would prohibit the use of mail for "incendiary
publications intended to instigate the slaves to insurrection."18 John C.
Calhoun of South Carolina led a special committee that opposed the proposal on
grounds that it conflicted with the First Amendment. The proposal was defeated
because it was a form of censorship.

The next
violation of the principles contained in the First Amendment came on January 2,
1920. Under the direction of A. Mitchell Palmer, Woodrow Wilson's Attorney
General, about 500 FBI agents and police raided 3,000 Russians and other
European immigrants, looking for Communists to deport. The victims were
arrested without warrants, homes were ransacked, personal property was seized,
and they were hauled off to jail.

An even
more vicious episode was known as "McCarthyism,"19 an incident in the
1950's when Senator Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin proclaimed that the federal
government had been thoroughly infiltrated by Communist agents. His attacks on
United States information libraries abroad led to the burning of some books
accused of being Communist propaganda. Reduced congressional support caused
many librarians to resign and the closing of libraries.

On the
morning of December 16, 1965, thirteen year old Mary Beth Tinker went to school
in Des Moines, Iowa. She and her fifteen year old brother, John, had decided
to wear black armbands as a protest to the Vietnam War. In advance to their
arrival, the principal had decided that any student wearing an arm- band would
be told to remove it, stating that, "The schools are no place for
demonstrations."20 If the student refused, he would be suspended until
the armband was permanently removed. On December 16, the Tinkers refused to
remove their armbands. They were suspended and did not return to school until
after January 1, when by a previous decision the protest had ended.

The
students brought suit in federal court to confirm their First Amendment right
to wear the black armbands. They lost in The Federal District Court on grounds
that this type of symbolic expression might disturb school discipline. The
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit was divided equally
(4 4) so the decision remained unchanged.

On February
24, 1969, the United States Supreme Court decided in the students' favor by a
vote of 7 to 2. The Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District decision
was a landmark case for students' rights and liberties. Speaking for the
majority of the Court, Justice Abe Fortas wrote, "It can hardly be argued
that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of
speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."21

During the
sixties and early seventies a new wave of court battles for First Amendment
freedoms emerged. The freedom of speech was recognized as a vital element in a
democratic society. Censorship and the infringement of First Amendment rights,
especially among students and their newspapers, could not and would not be
tolerated. American citizens took a firm stand against the government and
authority at important times when they could have yielded to the oppressive
violations of their rights.

Not what you're looking for?

If this essay isn't quite what you're looking for, why not order your own custom Coursework essay, dissertation or piece of coursework that answers your exact question? There are UK writers just like me on hand, waiting to help you. Each of us is qualified to a high level in our area of expertise, and we can write you a fully researched, fully referenced complete original answer to your essay question.
Just complete our simple order form and you could have your customised Coursework work in your email box, in as little as 3 hours.

Linda Senior Lecturer in Economics, Essay UK Researcher Team.

Search:

About this resource

This coursework was submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies.